Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard
Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 21:24 UTC
Return-Path: <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C391294BF; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b1DSdV2akUnn; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8668B1295B3; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k86so118554073lfi.0; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vsfPH/C+4iydCVPRGSuVMM6afBPI1Xk/wAb7RfUW/NA=; b=svNKAp+lT8WTc6DoqTuVpf9Z3O2FX4HuVjvZ8UPn0U+MJGXUCc0vI69flyWbcRqasG JZVW2zmPOe5DURhNorYk19Pm8dBwSXH8+Nqp6zpN2Xgvs9v4iZiQujKvqJN0za77RM85 BzIIal3mmcd5HV39PH6aI87AM82vBxj8PTSbGvpz/Ix2rScilmVyVN248Fc14l03cXw5 ATQ1VVAzrhrLPPnYiN5Pq4qlXtsvdd+ctg0tTqd2lyXzfoR7E2FKUkzUOiuRSw3aJSGA 5BFEUdNBgHtkNyYeP16VhJJ+c2wACD8WXJhRE3xmmH/kv1jvYD66gfVN7neAqpZbUgop xxWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vsfPH/C+4iydCVPRGSuVMM6afBPI1Xk/wAb7RfUW/NA=; b=l9YDILGeeuBQCJRHZ6rkGW57Pw+qkinsQtU+IMFXpQf7+RRZsy7CUaCwh1Yangq8Uj RvEkRsunQRP2siHA6akBf6Pd5qZ9T655f1DsWRdtFVc5d8/ci1KXS926TDT343iuVLfb i4gBNJQJnXn2y7cNsj+p8Bv5QbVG3f176unzky4cjDo2qYL1UP5O8kyO/l3UCcPHmUj0 ugcp/9qwDd55nz7cBi7ZEZnLcDXO+sbfXt/JSFFZmvaKSj0516FyRZh4B7VDnvuSCz31 ACIXqpG2rtiCP4NBN+GlM64aA/dlvKIok8uxl5QPr3EIa/uTOf1J3h2oAnBe/un1o9jp DjRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL1AMCZjVXHXJhO3ip8ByBcChzpneVlXMTug49L/4Cp2tSoqtiHmzdJkYgA78tBVM9HvYVU0cQ0sMR8Og==
X-Received: by 10.25.208.20 with SMTP id h20mr4382606lfg.150.1484688271595; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.228.12 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c5efbe4b018646489bb21b75a81e6836@CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com>
References: <148397251720.24904.6589163339967252298.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABPQr26jB94UCE+PcMh29PC+_=zxuTac4j-JMcuBKFYvWYPjDA@mail.gmail.com> <c5efbe4b018646489bb21b75a81e6836@CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com>
From: Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:24:31 +0300
Message-ID: <CABPQr26Z3DhLnO6N_-OX5ZM3U9_+F1wh++BbJGxDfkDqjz-LpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard
To: "Gunn, Janet P" <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114125c807df3a054650ed5f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3fUnJYamlNEAT-6QZ_DKm183jF8>
Cc: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, "dime-chairs@ietf.org" <dime-chairs@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:24:37 -0000
Hi Janet, OK, I will not argue :) -1 comment for Steve to answer. /Misha 2017-01-18 0:16 GMT+03:00 Gunn, Janet P <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>: > Point number 2- > > > > "As if the client were …" is correct (subjunctive for a "condition > contrary to fact") > > > > "As if the client was" … is grammatically INCORRECT. > > > > Janet > > > > *From:* DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Misha Zaytsev > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:24 PM > *To:* ietf@ietf.org > *Cc:* dime-chairs@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-agent- > overload@ietf.org; IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> > (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard > > > > Hi All, > > > > Here are my comments/questions to an agent overload draft. > > This the first part. Later on I will complete my review and send out the > second portion of the comments. > > > > 1. section 1 (editorial) removed "is" before "feasible". > > > > In the base specification, the goal is to handle abatement of the > > overload occurrence as close to the source of the Diameter traffic as > > feasible. > > > > "scenaios" -> "scenarios" > > > > The Peer overload report type is > > defined in a generic fashion so that it can also be used for other > > Diameter overload *scenarios*. > > > > 2. section 3.1.1 (editorial) replaced "were"-> "was" > > > > In both of these cases, the occurrence of overload in the single > > agent must by handled by the client in a similar fashion as if the > > client *was* handling the overload of a directly connected server. > > > > 3. section 3.1.1 (question) > > > > An appropriate error response is sent back to the originator > > of the request. > > Who sends "an appropriate" error response" in this case? > > > > 4. section 3.1.2 (editorial) changed "to"->"the" > > > > When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two > > agents then an alternative strategy for responding to an overload > > report from an agent is to change *the *standby connection to active and > > route all traffic through the new active connection. > > > > 5. section 3.1.3 (editorial) > > > > An example of this type of deployment include*s* when there are Diameter > > agents between administrative domains. > > 6. section 3.1.3 > > > > There is no section 2.2. I guess section 3.1.2 was meant here, right? > > > > Handling of overload of one or both of agents a11 or a12 in this case > > is equivalent to that discussed in section 2.2. > > > > 7. section 3.2.1 > > > > It is not clear which usage scenario is meant here. > > > > It is envisioned that abatement algorithms will be defined that will > > support the option for Diameter Endpoints to send peer reports. For > > instance, it is envisioned that one usage scenario for the rate > > algorithm, [I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control], which is being worked > > on by the DIME working group as this document is being written, will > > involve abatement being done on a hop-by-hop basis. > > > > 8. section 4 > > > > Why is throttling to be applied and not diversion (like in case of > redundant agents)? > > > > In this scenario the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the > > overloaded host or realm. > > "LOSS" Is it a new type defined in the scope of this draft? > > > > Note: The goal is to avoid traffic oscillations that might result > > from throttling of messages for both the HOST/REALM overload > > reports and the PEER overload reports. This is especially a > > concern if *both reports are of type LOSS*. > > > > 9. section 5.1.1 > > > > Probably it is better to describe OC_PEER_REPORT feature in section 5.1? > > Otherwise, it is used as a well-known one while it is the first place > where it is mentioned. > > > > Also I think it is better to add more specific in this draft related to > peer report handling: > > - define Peer Report Reacting Node and Peer Report Reporting Node terms > explicitly and use them through the draft and especially starting from > section 5.1 > > - add "Peer Report" prefix to all the described procedures > > Example: Capability Announcement -> Peer Report Capability Announcement > > > > 10. section 5.1.1/general > > > > "DiameterIdentity" and "Diameter identity" > > My proposal is to use one term through the spec. > > > > Under "DOIC node", an agent is meant here? > > > > When an agent relays a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the > > OC-Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that supports the > > OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST remove the received SourceID AVP and > > replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity. > > > > My proposal is to use peer report reacting node here re-phrasing this > statement below in the following way: > > > > When relaying a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the > > OC-Supported-Features AVP, a peer report reacting node MUST remove the received SourceID AVP and > > replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own DiameterIdentity. > > 11. section 5.1.2 > > > > added the missed "to" > > changed "PEER_REPORT"-> "PEER" > > > > Note: The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting > > as a peer-report reporting node and needs *to *send OC-OLR reports of > > type *PEER *in answer messages. The peer overload reports > > are only included in answer messages being sent to peers that > > support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature. > > > > "Diameter ID" term is not clarified anywhere. > > Re-phrased the appropriate statement a little bit, changed "Diameter > ID"->"value" > > Also there are other places in the draft where "Diameter ID" term is used. > > > > The peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request > > contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with > > the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a > > value that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which > > the request was received. > > > > Agent is meant under "reporting node" here? > > > > Should not SourceID AVP not just stripped from the relayed answer, but > replaced with the SourceID AVP containing the DiameterIdentity of the agent > supporting OC_PEER_REPORT feature? > > > > When an agent relays an answer message, a reporting node that > > supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from > > the OC-Supported-Features AVP. > > > > Hard to follow what was wanted to say here: > > Corrected the statement, but this is just my best guess. > > > > The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement > > algorithm that the reporting node wants the reacting nodes to use > > *when *the reporting node send*s* a peer overload report as a result of > > becoming overloaded. > > > > Should not we add a separate if- statement for the case when the peer does > not support OC_PEER_REPORT feature when sending an answer message? > > > > 12. section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 > > > > Probably it is more helpful to illustrate OC_PEER_REPORT feature CA using > sequence diagrams like in the load info conveyance draft. > > > > 13. general. > > > > What about to use the writing for the same terms through the spec? > > Example1: "DOIC node" and "DOIC Node" > > Example2: "peer-report reporting node" and "peer report reporting node" > > > > 14. section 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and general > > > > "peer-type OCS" and "peer report OCS" define the same term? > > Why not to use only one? > > > > Another example: "peer report" and "peer report-type" and "report of type > PEER" > > > > 15. section 5.2.3 > > > > Probably it is better to re-phrase this statement a little bit + corrected > the misprints. > > > > If a *peer report* reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the > > SourceID matches the *DiameterIdentity *of the peer from which the *report* > > was received then the report was *generated *by the peer. > > > > Similar comment + corrected misprints for the next statement: > > > > If a peer report reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the > > SourceID does not match the *DiameterIdentity *of the peer from which the > > *report *was received then the reacting node MUST ignore the overload > > report. > > > > Also I think it is useful to use one wording for the same term: > > "Peer Report OLR", "OC-OLR AVP", "OLR" > > Let's use a generic one "peer report"? > > > > Just minor comment: "the existing..." and "a new overload condition" for > all occurrences if my English is correct. > > > > 16. section 5.2.3 > > > > How may it happen that peer report reacting node receives a peer report > not from the peer that generated it? > > Peer reports can be sent only to peer report reacting node, right? And > peer reports are not relayed, right? > > > > Best regards, > > > > /Misha > > > > > > 2017-01-09 17:35 GMT+03:00 The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>: > > > The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and > Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: > - 'Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report' > <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-23. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This specification documents an extension to RFC 7683 (Diameter > Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC)) base solution. The extension > defines the Peer overload report type. The initial use case for the > Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter > agent. > > Requirements > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > The document contains these normative downward references. > See RFC 3967 for additional information: > draft-roach-dime-overload-ctrl: A Mechanism for Diameter Overload > Control (None - ) > Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable > Downref Registry. > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > This electronic message transmission contains information from CSRA that > may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary or confidential. The > information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) > to whom it is addressed. If you believe you have received this message in > error, please contact me immediately and be aware that any use, disclosure, > copying or distribution of the contents of this message is strictly > prohibited. NOTE: Regardless of content, this email shall not operate to > bind CSRA to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit > written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of > email for such purpose. >
- Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Misha Zaytsev
- RE: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Gunn, Janet P
- RE: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Gunn, Janet P
- Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Misha Zaytsev